FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZMBV v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1241 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) SZMBV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSd 772 OF 2008 MARSHALL J 14 AUGUST 2008 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSd 772 OF 2008 BETWEEN: SZMBV Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: MARSHALL J DATE OF ORDER: 14 AUGUST 2008 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal, fixed at $800. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSd 772 OF 2008 BETWEEN: SZMBV Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: MARSHALL J DATE: 14 AUGUST 2008 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant applies for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court which dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse the applicant a protection visa. 2 Leave is required for the applicant to appeal from the Court below as the Court below dismissed the applicant's application as disclosing no arguable case pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth). That judgment is an interlocutory one. 3 The applicant is a citizen of India. He claimed to be a Hindu who feared persecution from a powerful Muslim family as a result of disputes arising from the marriage of his brother to a Muslim girl. The Tribunal did not accept the applicant as a witness of the truth. It rejected those claims. 4 The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's claim to suffer persecution as a member of a particular social group, being farmers from Rajasthan. The Tribunal said that the material before it did not show that farmers from that State were treated any differently by reason of their membership of that group than other members of Indian society. 5 The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim that he did not have civil or political freedom in India. It relied on country information, which it put to the applicant that showed India to be a stable democracy. 6 Before the Court below, the applicant relied on assertions of a denial of natural justice and a failure to follow proper procedures and law. The Federal Magistrate said that the Tribunal had rejected the applicant's claims based on his evidence and country information. 7 The applicant's draft notice of appeal complains about the Federal Magistrate's failure to identify a jurisdictional error without specifying any type of error within that category. The judgment below is not attended with any doubt. No substantial injustice arises from the refusal of leave to appeal. The application is dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall. Associate: Dated: 14 August 2008 There was no appearance from the Applicant. Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms B Anniwell for Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 14 August 2008 Date of Judgment: 14 August 2008